“President Al Gore." "President Hillary Clinton." Let those words sink in and contemplate the consequences we'd be living with had those words become reality after the 2000 and 2016 elections.

We'd all likely be giving more of our family budgets to the federal government via increased taxes. The federal government no doubt would have added billions or trillions more dollars to our national debt with unfunded liabilities; by funding every left-wing, big-government program imaginable; by paying reparations to every aggrieved population in American history; and by chasing the monumental conceit of believing human activity is capable of changing the Earth's climate.

We wouldn't have experienced the strongest economy in half a century (before COVID-19), and we'd likely be on a path of no return toward, to borrow President Barack Obama's words, "fundamentally transforming" the U.S. into the United Socialist States of America. We very well could be seeking comradeship with Cuba, Greece, and Venezuela as our streets fill with riots over never-satisfiable demands for more and more taxpayer-funded government handouts.

And who knows how a President Gore would have responded to 9/11? Or how a President Clinton would have responded to North Korea and Iran? If Secretary of State Clinton under President Obama is any indication, they might have flown hundreds of millions of more American dollars in cash to the airports of foreign capitals, seeking to appease terrorists and dictators.

That's precisely the alternate reality we could be living if the so-called National Popular Vote Compact had been in effect in those two elections, bypassing the Electoral College that wisely was designed by our Founding Fathers. The Oval Office would have been awarded — based on Democratic supermajorities in a handful of states such as California and New York — to the winners of the national popular vote.

Newsletter signup for email alerts

It's no accident that every legislature that has approved a National Popular Vote Compact is in a state that voted for Clinton in 2016.

And it's no surprise the organization leading the charge for a national popular vote has been endorsed by left-wing groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Indivisible and has received millions of dollars in funding, directly or indirectly, from the families of left-wing billionaires George Soros and Stephen Silberstein.

Advocates of a national popular vote disingenuously claim they're not doing away with the Electoral College, just allowing states that go along with the scheme to allocate who their presidential electors vote for in future presidential elections.

But what goes around comes around. In the two modern elections preceding this year’s, Republicans Bush and Trump who won the Electoral College while their Democratic opponents won the national popular vote. In some future election, that could be reversed.

Voters in Minnesota and elsewhere should find the national-popular-vote scheme objectionable, regardless of political party. If the Minnesota Legislature adopts the scheme, it would award Minnesota's electoral votes in future elections to whichever candidate for president wins the popular vote nationally — even if a majority of the people of Minnesota voted for the other candidate!

That one, simple, indisputable fact, that rank-and-file voters of both parties would be disenfranchised by a constitutionally dubious scheme approved by partisan politicians, should be enough for the average citizen of Minnesota or any other state to reject it.

Gary Glenn of Midland, Michigan, is a former state representative and chairman of the Michigan chapter of the Phyllis Schlafly Constitution Center. This is excerpted from a commentary he wrote for the News Tribune in response to a "National View" column published by the paper on April 23, 2019, headlined, "A national popular vote would mean every vote counts."